The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Members: Designation "MLA" Assembly Standing Orders

Mr Speaker: The first five motions on the Order Paper concern amendments that were recommended by the Standing Orders Committee, which no longer exists. They will be moved by the Members who were the joint Chairmen of that Committee.
Should the Assembly so wish, all five motions will be discussed in a single debate, after which we shall vote on each in turn.
All changes to Standing Orders require cross-community support. As I have previously ruled, if on collection of the voices there is no indication of dissent I shall assume that cross-community support has been achieved. If, however, there is any dissent we must move to a Division. I remind Members — and particularly the party Whips — that, since we are now operating under the new Standing Orders which were approved by the Assembly in March and determined by the Secretary of State prior to devolution, Divisions shall require the use of the Division Lobbies and, thus, slightly different procedures.

Mr Sean Neeson: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. Is it in order for an Assembly Member or a member of the Assembly staff to sign into this Building a member of the public whose sole purpose is to disrupt and harangue the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister when making statements, as happened last Thursday? If it is out of order what action will be taken against the person responsible?

Mr Speaker: With regard to the signing in of any visitor, it is not possible to judge in advance what anyone’s motives are. What is very clear is that if anyone introduces disorder, either on the Floor of the House or in the Galleries, that is not proper and not acceptable. I appeal to all Members to co-operate in this regard. I think I made it clear at the last sitting that if there is disorder in the Galleries they will be cleared.

Mr Denis Haughey: First, I should point out that the Committee on Standing Orders no longer exists. MrCobain and I are proposing these motions because we were the joint Chairmen of that Committee and there are one or two matters to be tidied up. We agreed to present these matters to the Assembly to provide for the smooth running of business.
We would like to propose the items en bloc. However, if you want us to take them in turn we shall be glad to do so.

Mr Speaker: It might be helpful to deal with each matter in turn as Members are only beginning to become familiar with all the issues.
Motion made:
That this Assembly confirms "MLA" as designatory letters for Assembly Members. — [MrCobain and Mr Haughey]

Mr Denis Haughey: This was agreed by the Committee on Standing Orders. The letters "MLA" are widely used by a number of subordinate legislatures, and they seem to us to be the most appropriate. Other designatory letters were considered but were discarded for one reason or another in favour of "MLA".
The following motions stood on the Order Paper in the names of MrCobain and MrHaughey:
After Standing Order 57 insert a new Standing Order:
"Standing Committee on European Affairs
(1) There shall be a Standing Committee of the Assembly to be known as the Standing Committee on European Affairs.
(2) It shall consider and review on an ongoing basis:
(a) matters referred to it in relation to European Union issues; and
(b) any other related matter or matters determined by the Assembly.
(3) The Committee shall have powers to call for persons and papers.
(4) The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine."
After Standing Order 57 insert a new Standing Order:
"Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations
(1) There shall be a Standing Committee of the Assembly to be known as the Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations Committee.
(2) It shall consider and review on an ongoing basis:
(a) matters referred to it in relation to Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations; and
(b) any other related matter or matters determined by the Assembly.
(3) The Committee shall have powers to call for persons and papers.
(4) The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine."
In Standing Order 10, paragraph(1), insert "(g) Party Business".
In Standing Order 45, paragraph (1)(a), after "Portfolio;", insert "and".
In Standing Order 45, delete sub-paragraph(c) of paragraph (1) and add
"(2) Statutory Committees shall have the powers described in paragraph9 of StrandOne of the Belfast Agreement (CM 3883) and may, in particular, exercise the power in Section44(1) of the NorthernIreland Act 1998."

Mr Denis Haughey: I cannot deal with the second motion — the setting up of a Standing Committee on European Affairs — without referring to the third, which is for the setting up of a Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations.
The Standing Orders Committee expressed concern that the legislation did not provide for the type of scrutiny of the functions of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister which has been provided in respect of the other Government Departments. It was felt that there were major issues which need to be thoroughly scrutinised. Two issues — European affairs, and equality, human rights and community relations — were identified as having sufficient breadth and scope to merit having separate Committees.
Other functions of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister not covered by these two motions will need to be scrutinised, but we did not agree how this might be done, and a motion about this will be put before the Assembly in the future.
The Committee considered the Westminster practice of the Government’s providing the Opposition with supply days. That is to say the Government provide space in the timetable of the House of Commons for the Opposition to raise issues of concern to it.
In the kind of structure that has been established for us, there are no formal Government and Opposition sides to the House. For that reason the Committee felt that individual parties would, from time to time, have priorities on their own agendas which were not provided for in the Administration’s programme of business. It was therefore decided that it would be useful to provide each of the parties represented in the Assembly with a period of time, each month perhaps, when such matters could be raised. For that reason we propose to insert in paragraph (1) at subparagraph (g) the words "party business".
The final business concerns the powers of Statutory Committees. We want to ensure beyond all doubt that the Statutory Committees are empowered under both the agreement and the terms of the Northern Ireland Act, and this change is being proposed following legal advice.

Mr Alex Maskey: Mr Haughey has spoken about the Standing Committee on European Affairs and the Standing Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations. I am not certain whether these Committees will have the right to raise any matter of their own volition and within their remits which has not been referred to them by the Assembly or any other body, and therefore I seek clarification on that.

Mr Speaker: Mr Haughey can deal with all such questions when he responds at the end of the debate.

Mr Patrick Roche: I wish to address the motion concerning the establishment of a Standing Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations. The fact that this Committee is being established suggests that the Assembly and the all-Ireland institutions, of which it is a part, are built on an authentic commitment to humanrights. If that is not the case, the consideration of this motion today is little more than an exercise in pretence and hypocrisy, so it is absolutely crucial to establish whether the Assembly can really be considered as being built on the solid foundation of respect for equality and human rights.
The domain of human rights — those rights which we possess by virtue of our being human — is a matter of philosophical dispute. However, what is not a matter of dispute, short of denying that there are any human rights, is that the most fundamental human right is the right to life.
The right to life is fundamental in the crucial sense that all other human rights are derived from it. The most immediate human right derived from the right to life is the right to be protected from violence and the threat of violence, both in public and private life. This is the moral basis of democratic practice.
The implementation of the Belfast Agreement has politically institutionalised the very opposite of democratic practice. The outworking of the agreement has secured for Sinn Féin a central role in government backed by the terrorist arsenal of the IRA. This means that the threat of force has been fully incorporated into the Government of Northern Ireland. The outcome of the Mitchell review has, in fact, fully legitimised this state of affairs because it established that decommissioning, if it ever occurs, has to be a voluntary act on the part of the terrorist organisations. That is absolutely incompatible with democracy. The core of democracy — [Interruption]
10.45 am

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member is required to take his seat.
I am not clear that what is being said is relevant to a Standing Order provision for the establishment of a Committee. I plead with the Member to address the specific Standing Order issues rather than simply repeat what has been said again and again in different debates.

Mr Patrick Roche: I reject entirely what you are saying.

Mr Speaker: The Member is not at liberty, under Standing Orders, to reject what the Speaker says.

Mr Patrick Roche: What you have done is express the view that what I am saying is not relevant to the motion. What I am saying is entirely relevant to the motion. My point is —

Mr Speaker: It is not an expression of a view, but a ruling, and it must be understood that in the conduct of debates we have to abide by the rules. I advise the Member to read them again.
We cannot have the same speeches applied to every single debate, no matter what the content. Therefore I ask the Member to address himself to the question of Standing Orders, of which this is a proposed amendment for the establishment of a Committee. It is not an opportunity to reiterate again and again a set of principles, however laudable they may or may not be.

Mr Patrick Roche: I will continue. The point I was making —

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do we have to listen to this if the Member insists on defying your judgement? Is there any alternative?

Mr Speaker: The Member is entitled to continue for as long as he has leave. I have ruled that he should attend to the question, which is the proposal to amend Standing Orders to establish a Committee. Please continue, Mr Roche.

Mr Patrick Roche: The point that I am developing is that there is something entirely incongruous with the whole idea of developing this Committee. That is the argument that I wish to be given freedom to develop. The point I was making is that the voluntary nature of decommissioning within the Mitchell review is absolutely incompatible with democracy. The core of democracy lies in the conduct of politics, free from the threat or use of violence. Democratic practice is therefore ultimately rooted in respect for the most fundamental of human rights. Democratic government must be based entirely on electoral support. This means that no political party in a democracy can claim a right to be involved in government on the basis of a so-called electoral mandate —

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. In a debate on such a serious matter is it in order for the Member for Strangford, Mr John Taylor, to speak in loud tones? We are talking about an issue of human rights, yet there seems to be a great lack of interest in the subject matter. Surely my colleague MrRoche should be given a reasonable hearing.

Mr Speaker: I have experienced a great deal more disorder and allowed things to continue. I have found that some of those who now wish to speak have at times not been too keen to hear what some other Members have to say.
It is not in order for exactly the same issues to be raised again and again in every debate, no matter what the debate is about.
This is not a debate about the fundamental principles on which this Assembly is established. It is not a debate about the Belfast Agreement or about decommissioning. It is a debate about an amendment to Standing Orders to create a Committee. I am prepared to give some leeway for the setting down of one or two principles, but to have an entire speech consisting of that, and not addressing the technical issues involved in the setting up of a Committee, is not reasonable and is not in order.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Is it in order for a party to oppose the formation of this Committee, and is this the correct place in which to do so?

Mr Speaker: It is entirely in order for any Member to oppose it. The time to do that will be when the Question is put.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Are you saying that there is no opportunity to speak against the motion, that the only way to oppose it is to vote against it?

Mr Speaker: That is not what I am saying. I have been giving leave for Members to speak, but it is clear that speeches which address the fundamental principles on which the Assembly is founded are going well beyond the remit for the debate. That is absolutely clear.

Mr Patrick Roche: My speech addresses the fundamental issue of what is required for an authentic commitment to respect for human rights. Democratic government must be based entirely on electoral support. This means that no political party in a democracy can claim a right to be involved in government on the basis of a so-called electoral mandate while at the same time retaining at its disposal the persuasion that comes from the barrel of a gun. The implementation of the Belfast Agreement has institutionalised the combination of the Armalite—

Mr Donovan McClelland: On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer. Your position as Presiding Officer is being blatantly undermined by Mr Roche’s persistence in continuing with his speech.

Mr Speaker: A number of transitions have not been appreciated. For those who study these matters let me say that I am no longer the Initial Presiding Officer.

Mr Donovan McClelland: My apologies.

Mr Speaker: You were correct, Mr McClelland; others were not.
It is clearly out of order to continue to speak about fundamental principles of the Belfast Agreement. If that sort of issue is referred to again, I will have to proceed further.
In respect of the previous point of order, it might be helpful for me to point out that if we move to a Division, those who called for the vote must supply Tellers. If Tellers are not supplied in time, there is no Division.

Mr Patrick Roche: This is an anomalous situation. We are considering a motion for the establishment of a Standing Committee on human rights, when we cannot actually explore the fundamentals of the issue and consider the question of to what extent this Assembly can authentically commit itself to the protection of human rights. That is the issue I was exploring. The implementation of the agreement has institutionalised the combination of the Armalite and the ballot box into the Government of Northern Ireland. It is entirely incompatible with the most fundamental of human rights. This is an affront to common decency.
Membership of and support for the IRA is entirely incompatible with genuine respect for human rights. Where does that place Mr Adams and, in particular, Mr McGuinness? In the recently published book ‘Lost Lives’, entry 487 describes the death of Robert Gibson on "bloody Friday". It is a horrendous account of what happened that day. "Bloody Friday" was the work of the IRA, but who within the IRA was responsible? Patrick Bishop and EamonnMallie, in their book ‘The Provisional IRA’, state that the bombings were planned by Seamus Twomey. They add that he was assisted by a leading Provisional who is now a senior member of SinnFéin.

Mr Speaker: Order. I really must move on with the debate. I emphasise again that this debate is about establishing a Committee to scrutinise an aspect of the work of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It is not a debate about the fundamental principles of the Belfast Agreement, the establishment of the Assembly or decommissioning.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to place on record that my Colleague was attempting to raise a matter of concern relating to a major breach of human rights. It appears that the Assembly wants to stifle a debate on the matter at the time when Members are setting up a Committee to deal with that very issue. It is a scandal—

Mr Speaker: Order. The proper place — if there is a proper place — to raise that question is in the Committee. That is the point in setting up the Committee. This is not an opportunity for a debate about the fundamental principles.
Insofar as this is a point of order, that is my ruling.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Mr Neeson had a point of order.

Mr Sean Neeson: Is it in order for a Member to hold up the establishment of a Committee when he is not prepared to sit on any Committee?

Mr Speaker: It is in order for the Member to raise such questions in the debate, so long as they are within the context of the debate.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your view, and I am prepared to accept the ruling of the Chair. However, there is something very wrong when a Member who is opposed to the formation of this Committee, on the basis that those who have committed the most serious breaches of civil and human rights will be chairing and sitting on Committees, cannot voice his opposition.

Mr Speaker: With regard to the point of order, the Committee will be established if the Assembly so wishes. Matters referred to the Committee may be discussed and debated in the Committee, and then they may come to the Floor of the House. However, this is a technical question of changing the Standing Order to establish such a Committee.

Mr Francie Molloy: Chathaoirligh. In relation to the motion concerning "MLA", there was a long debate in the Standing Orders Committee on variations. I want it confirmed that it will be possible for Members to use a translation, whether in Ulster-Scots or in Irish, or a variation — perhaps "TD" (Teachta Dála). Members should be able to use their preferred variations.

Mr Speaker: I will leave it to the proposer to respond on that matter. However, if it becomes part of the Standing Orders and if I am asked about it I will, of course, respond.

Mr Peter Weir: As some Members have indicated, there was considerable debate in the Standing Orders Committee some time ago about the use of "MLA". Indeed, it was so long ago that I was still on the Committee. Back then I and several other Members supported the "MPA" proposal. Other proposals were put forward. I felt that "MPA" was appropriate, given that it echoed what applied in the period 1982-86 and that it was closer to parliamentary lingo.
One of my reservations about the use of "MLA" was that it would make Members sound as though they were members of an African terrorist organisation. Perhaps in the light of other events, particularly the elevation of some to ministerial posts last year, I will withdraw my reservations. Perhaps it is more appropriate than was originally envisaged.
11.00am
With regard to the Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations Committee, I appreciate the problems that have been raised and share the fundamental concern that exists about the breach of human rights in NorthernIreland. However, I do urge Members to support the creation of the Committee.
During the StandingOrders debate I, among others, raised the point that the Office of the First Minister and the DeputyFirstMinister was not to have an appropriate level of scrutiny. Each of the other 10 Departments is scrutinised by a Statutory Committee. How those Committees will work out in practice is another matter, but there will at least be some scrutiny. However, no Committee was established to scrutinise the work of the First and Deputy First Ministers. I consider that to be a missed opportunity, and it has left a hole in the scrutiny procedure that we apply to the Government.
Subsequent to the debate a Committee for Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations was proposed, which would cover a large part of the brief of the First and Deputy First Ministers. Although my preference is for a Committee to look specifically at the full remit of the First and DeputyFirstMinisters’ responsibilities, we should take this opportunity to introduce some level of scrutiny to an area that may be under the control of a junior Minister. This would ensure that the First and the DeputyFirstMinisters’ activities were kept under the spotlight in the same way as those of the other Departments. Notwithstanding the reservations held by some Members with regard to the human rights issue — and I understand those at a philosophical level — there are practical reasons for our agreeing to the establishment of the Committee. On this occasion the practical reasons should result in the whole House’s supporting the creation of such a Committee.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Women’s Coalition welcomes the setting up of these important Committees. Members are aware that the way forward for Northern Ireland is to create a role for itself in Europe and the EuropeanUnion. It is vital that a Committee be set up to ensure that links to the European Union are established or, where they already exist, strengthened.
The very fabric of the Assembly — the basis of all its work — is equality, human rights and community relations, so it is vital that a Committee be set up to this end. We would also like to see the creation of an additional Committee to scrutinise the Centre.
Finally, the Women’s Coalition would like to ensure — and we seek clarification here from MrHaughey — that the Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations will also be able to raise issues concerning European affairs and equality.

Mr Denis Haughey: Mr Maskey referred to the powers of the European Affairs Committee and the Committee on Equality, Human Rights and CommunityRelations. Their powers will be extensive, though not as extensive as the powers of the departmental Committees. The main distinction relates to legislative initiatives. I refer MrMaskey to paragraph 2(b), which enables the Committee on EuropeanAffairs and the Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations to raise any other related matter or matters determined by the Assembly. I also refer him to paragraph (3), which states
"The committee shall have powers to call for persons and papers."
That is the standard constitutional formula which enables the Committee to call any person within the jurisdiction of this House, to call for papers produced at any level within the Administration in order to examine those papers and to interrogate the persons responsible for the conduct of the Administration. Those are very extensive powers and will enable the Committee to conduct its business with a good deal of influence and power.
In relation to the issues raised by MrRoche, there is nothing that requires any response by me regarding Standing Orders.
MrMolloy raised the interesting question of whether an adequate translation of "Member of the Legislative Assembly" would be the term "Teachta Dála", which, as Members will know, is the designation used by Members of Dáil Éireann, giving rise to the letters "TD" after Members’ names. I do not know if that was MrMolloy’s intention, but I am not an adequate enough Gaelic scholar to determine whether "Member of the Legislative Assembly" and "Teachta Dála" mean exactly the same. To me they do not seem to mean the same thing, but I would not be opposed to the use of the term "Teachta Dála" as a translation.
MrWeir raised the issue of the designation "MPA", which was used in the 1982-86 Assembly. That was considered by the Committee on Standing Orders, and it was decided that "MLA" was a better designation in the current circumstances. MrWeir also urged Members to support the creation of the Equality Committee, as did MsMorrice, and I welcome their support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly confirms "MLA" as designatory letters for Assembly Members.
Resolved:
After Standing Order 57 insert a new Standing Order:
"Standing Committee on European Affairs
(1) There shall be a Standing Committee of the Assembly to be known as the Standing Committee on European Affairs.
(2) It shall consider and review on an ongoing basis:
(a) matters referred to it in relation to European Union issues; and
(b) any other related matter or matters determined by the Assembly.
(3) The Committee shall have powers to call for persons and papers.
(4) The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine." — [MrCobain and MrHaughey]
Motion made:
After Standing Order 57 insert a new Standing Order:
"Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations
(1) There shall be Standing Committee of the Assembly to be known as the Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations Committee.
(2) It shall consider and review on an ongoing basis:
(a) matters referred to it in relation to Equality, Human Rights and Community relations; and
(b) any other related matter or matters determined by the Assembly.
(3) The Committee shall have powers to call for persons and papers.
(4) The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine." — [MrCobain and Mr Haughey]
Question put.
The Assembly proceeded to a Division.

Mr Speaker: I call for the appointment of Tellers. I should explain what is to happen since this is the first time that we have had a Division. All Members take their seats while I am on my feet. Those who are supportive and those who are opposed should appoint two Tellers who should come to the front. If either side fails to appoint Tellers, there will be no Division. I shall give instructions on how to proceed after the Tellers have been appointed.
There are Division Lobbies on either side. The Ayes will go to the right, and the Noes to the left. The Tellers will move through two doors, where they will find the Clerks ready to take note of the votes as Members pass through.

Mr Peter Weir: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I presume that those abstaining will stay in their seats. That is normal parliamentary procedure.

Mr Speaker: The votes of those who proceed through the Lobbies are the only ones which can be counted. If Members pass through a Lobby and then realise that they have voted in the wrong way, as occasionally happens, they may then proceed to the other Division Lobby and vote on the other side. This will cancel their vote, but they cannot revise their vote in any other way.

Mr John Fee: Is that a case of voting early and often? [Laughter]

Mr Speaker: It is a case of voting mistakenly, and twice.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: I am taking points of order, and without setting any precedent, only because we are doing this for the first time.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. My only experience of this was in the Chamber in 1975, when a Member from the DUP, it being late in the evening and he having dined well, made a mistake about which Lobby to vote in and had to go through both Lobbies. The Chairman of the Constitutional Convention then asked him to indicate how he had intended to vote so that it could be recorded.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful for that historical note. However, I will not be regarding it or anything else to do with the Constitutional Convention as an appropriate precedent. Members can vote twice, but their second vote will cancel their first, and there will be no further vote.

Mr Derek Hussey: I understand that as this is a cross- community vote the designations will be established as when we go through the Lobbies. Is that correct?

Mr Speaker: That is absolutely correct. This vote requires cross-community consent, so as you proceed through, your name will be called. The Clerks may wish you to hesitate for a second, for when your name is called, your photograph will appear on the laptop screen, thereby enabling your identity to be checked, your designation to be noted automatically and the numbers to be calculated.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I want to make it clear that I am opposed to the formation of a Committee on Human Rights on the basis that there will be — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Wilson, order — [Interruption] If there is further disorder the Member will be named. I do not wish to proceed in that way. It is entirely unnecessary. There must be order in the House, and I trust that you are all aware of the consequences of naming a Member.
We will proceed with the vote.
When the Tellers are satisfied that all Members who wish to vote have come through their Lobby, they, the Tellers, should go to cast their vote — to the other Lobby, if necessary — return to their own Lobby and advise me that the vote has been completed. I point this out for those who currently are Tellers as well as for those who might be in the future.
The Assembly having divided: Ayes 68; Noes 3.
AYES
Nationalist
Gerry Adams, Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Hume, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Eugene McMenamin, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.
Unionist
Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, David Ervine, John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, John Taylor, David Trimble, Peter Weir, Jim Wilson.
Other
Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Sean Neeson.
NOES
Unionist
Norman Boyd, Patrick Roche, Cedric Wilson.
Total Votes 71 Total Ayes 68 (95.8%)
Nationalist Votes 34 Nationalist Ayes 34 (100%)
Unionist Votes 30 Unionist Ayes 27 (90%)
Question accordingly agreed to (by cross-community consent).
Resolved:
After Standing Order 57 insert a new Standing Order:
"Committee on Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations"
(1) There shall be a Standing Committee of the Assembly to be known as the Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations Committee.
(2) It shall consider and review on an ongoing basis:
(a) matters referred to it in relation to Equality, Human Rights and Community Relations; and
(b) any other related matter or matters determined by the Assembly.
(3) The Committee shall have powers to call for persons and papers.
(4) The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine."
Resolved:
In Standing Order 10, paragraph (1), insert "(g) Party Business". — [MrCobain and MrHaughey]
Resolved:
In Standing Order 45, paragraph(1)(a), after "Portfolio;", insert "and". — [MrCobain and MrHaughey]
Resolved:
In Standing Order 45, paragraph (1), delete sub-paragraph (c) and insert
"(2) Statutory Committees shall have the powers described in paragraph 9 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement (CM 3883) and may, in particular, exercise the power in Section 44(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1988." — [Mr Cobain and Mr Haughey]

Assembly Commission

Resolved:
That the membership of the Assembly Commission shall consist of
The Speaker Mrs Eileen Bell Mr Gregory Campbell Rev Robert Coulter Mr John Fee Dr Dara O’Hagan. — [Mr Molloy]

Bills: First Stage

Mr Speaker: We now proceed to the First Stage of the first Bills to be brought to the House. As these are the first Bills to be presented, it may be helpful to Members if I briefly explain the process. The First Stage of a Bill is entirely formal and simply allows for the introduction of the measure. There is no debate, but Members will have an opportunity to debate and amend later.
At the First Stage I invite a Member proposing a Bill formally to move that the Bill be laid. The Clerk will read the long title of the Bill. Once established, that cannot be changed or amended. For that reason it is important that this be completed at First Stage. The Clerk will read the title of the Bill, as required under Standing Order 28(5), and that shall constitute First Stage. The Bill can then be ordered to be printed. The measure will be available to Members the following day or shortly afterwards.
As the first three Bills deal with the Commission, we are altering the procedure slightly in that those proposing the measures will come to the lectern. We have established that Members speaking for the Commission are acting for the House and, therefore, take a slightly different position. Otherwise Ministers and private Members speak from their places.
There are no votes, and there is no debate — a First Stage is purely formal. There will be an opportunity to vote on a Bill in principle at the Second Stage. The Committee and Consideration Stages will provide opportunities for discussion, and any amendments will be made at the Consideration Stage. At the Final Stage there will be a vote on the measure as a whole.

Assembly Members’ Pensions Bill

Rev Robert Coulter: Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Allowances to Members of the Assembly and Office Holders Bill

First Stage

Mr John Fee: Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Financial Assistance for Political Parties Bill: First Stage

Mr John Fee: Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Salaries) Determination 1999

Mr John Fee: I beg to move
That the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Salaries) Determination 1999 (NIA 3) be approved.
If ever there was a poisoned chalice, I think I have one. It is my task, on behalf of the Assembly Commission, to present to the Assembly the Determination on Members’ salaries. I would like to preface my remarks by saying that for the last 18 months the Shadow Assembly Commission has met regularly — 35 times, I think. MrPeterRobinson presented a report on behalf of the Shadow Commission on 22 February. We have enjoyed widespread support and help from Members of the Assembly. It has been hard work, and I would like to put on record that I have enjoyed working with all of the Shadow Commission’s members.
I had the unique experience of working with people like FrancieMolloy and PeterRobinson, with whom I would not normally have worked. I was impressed by their contributions; the House owes them a very deep debt of gratitude. I am also looking forward to working with the new members of the Commission, DrDara O’Hagan and MrGregoryCampbell. We have a job to do, and I hope that the new Assembly Commission can retain the confidence of the House.
Members will recall that, in February, the Shadow Commission recommended to the Assembly that we follow the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) in respect of remuneration for Members and office holders. Today’s Determination largely reflects that undertaking as well as the provisions in Section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which states
"(3) A determination under this section may provide —
(a) for higher salaries to be payable to Members of the Assembly —
(i) holding office as a Minister or junior Minister;
(ii) holding office as Presiding Officer or deputy;
(iii) holding office as a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission; or
(b) for different salaries to be payable to Members of the Assembly holding different such offices.
The salaries for the First Minister, departmental Ministers and the Presiding Officer are as recommended by the SSRB. Members will recall that the Prime Minister, on the Floor of the House of Commons, recommended that the salary of the Deputy First Minister be established as equal to that of the First Minister. The Shadow Assembly Commission accepted that recommendation.
The Shadow Commission has agreed all other salaries for office holders. The Senior Salaries Review Body recognised that there would be a need for extra remuneration for certain office holders post-devolution, and the Shadow Commission recommended that those increased salaries should be paid. The posts to which we refer are junior Ministers, members of the Assembly Commission, and Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of the Statutory Committees. The Review Body’s recommendation in respect of a daily rate for the Deputy Presiding Officer has been translated into an annual amount. At this stage, the Commission makes no recommendation about remuneration for Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of non-statutory Committees.
Another recommendation of the Senior Salaries Review Body was that salaries should be raised each year in line with the average increases at 1-1 mid-points of the nine Civil Service pay bands below permanent secretary. This has been done so that the salaries that are now presented differ from those in the Senior Salaries Review Body Report solely by the increase.
The SSRB also recommended that all salaries should be reviewed independently in the year 2001 and every three years thereafter. The Commission recommends that the Assembly adopt that recommendation.
Those who hold double or even triple mandates, as Members of the Assembly, of the House of Commons or/and of the European Parliament, will have their salaries as Members of the Assembly abated by two thirds. The Schedule will have to be amended should any additional office holders of the House who are entitled to be appointed. The Standing Orders may also need to be amended.
I regret that, although we are now implementing the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body, the new salaries will be backdated only to the date of devolution.

Mr Gerry Adams: A Chaothaoirligh. Ar dtús, mo bhuíochas leis an Choimisiún seo agus leis an Uasal O’Fee agus leis na daoine eile a rinne obair chruaidh thábhachtach air. Ach tá achainí agam ar an Uasal O’Fee agus ar an Uasal Coulter, nó ba mhaith linn an cheist seo a chur ar athlá. Molaim go gcuirimid ceist seo na dtuarastal agus cúrsaí eile airgid siar agus go bhfillimid orthu ag an chéad suí eile den Tionól. Idir an dá linn, beidh an Coimisiún ábalta comhairle a thabhairt dúinn.
First, I pay tribute to Mr Fee and the other Commission members for their work. Sinn Féin asked John Fee and Robert Coulter whether this issue might be deferred to the next meeting of the Assembly so that the new Commission could consider the whole question of salaries and other financial matters. We asked for that because, while I believe that politicians should be paid properly for the sacrifices that they and their families make, I have a huge problem with this increase of £7,000, which is almost three times the amount paid in a year to a person on social welfare.
At a time when students cannot get decent grants and when old people are not being awarded proper benefits we need to think about the matter again. The issue is bigger than any party, and it even has to do with the credibility of the Assembly. For those reasons I have asked that action be deferred and put to the new Commission.
Secondly, and on a lighter note, I congratulate the Antrim senior football team on winning a historic all-Ireland ‘B’ final yesterday. I ask other Members and perhaps the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to extend congratulations to the team’s management and to all who are involved in Cumann Lúthchleas Gael in County Antrim.

Mr Speaker: The Member may have seen some connection between his former and latter comments because of a family sporting connection and the fact that his salary is used to support his family, but it is a tenuous link.

Mrs Eileen Bell: As a member of the Commission, I wish to support my colleague Mr John Fee. I also wish to pay tribute to the former Commission members with whom I have worked. The Commission is a hard-working body, and I found it satisfying to operate alongside people with whom I had not worked in the past. I look forward to co-operating with the other people on the new Team. Commission members aim to achieve consensus for the benefit of all Assembly Members.
The SSRB recommendations were accepted by the Assembly earlier in the year, and I wish to make it clear that we have not given ourselves a fat-cat pay rise. I am led to believe by others, including trade union representatives, that a Member’s basic salary is equivalent to that of the principal officer grade in the Civil Service, so it would be unfair to accuse us of trying to feather our nests. It is also worth noting that a Member’s average working day could be up to 20 hours and — [Interruption]
I have not seen Mr McCartney here very often, so I do not know how long his working day is.
Many Members have been present every day working and lobbying. "Democracy must be paid for" — those are not my words but the words of a number of trade union representatives. If we are to do an adequate job, we must be paid an adequate wage.
Performance-related pay — pay by results — is not favoured by any member of the trade union movement. The unions realise, however, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to gauge standards of performance. The public will be able to judge Members during their time in office, and any Member with whom people are unhappy may be thrown out.
This determination should be approved to enable us to become effective Members of the Assembly and get on with the business that we have been elected to do: governing Northern Ireland equitably and responsibly.

Mr Robert McCartney: It is sad that one of the Assembly’s first acts — if not the first — is to vote its Members a very hefty increase in salary. For the past 18 months the Assembly has sat — to say the least — very intermittently.
I do not often agree with Sinn Féin, but there are fundamental principles with which one is bound to agree, whatever one’s political predilections. The suggestion that the Assembly should vote through a rise of the comparative nature that Mr Adams pointed out is nothing short of a disgrace.
Under these arrangements Mrs Bell will receive around £50,000. As far as families go — and I am speaking generally here — a number of Members are employing relations and paying them out of the £34,000 that they are about to get as a constituency allowance — a very, very healthy sum for those families indeed.
I have heard that some Members employ their wives at salaries of between £15,000 and £18,000 a year. I have also heard of Members who have not opened any constituency office to serve their constituents. My constituency office is open from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm five days a week and handles more than 3,500 constituency matters a year. In some places in North Down, such as the Kilcooley housing estate, there are people who need the services of someone who can help them. North Down is not all "gold coast".
When people look at this Assembly, which was supposed to bring them more efficient, more accountable, more sensitive and more human government, what do they find? They find Members voting themselves big, big salaries — increases of 25%. [Interruption] I hear murmurs from some Members. However, I believe that 30 of the 108 people elected were unemployed on the date of their election. Many of them have never contributed a single penny to this state by way of income tax, but they have taken plenty from it in benefits.

Mr David Ervine: Name them.

Mr Robert McCartney: The world knows who they are, and these Gentlemen and Ladies are about to vote themselves salaries. Members are about to receive £38,000 on an individual basis, and more than 50% will be voting themselves into jobs which will give them a range of salary increases: £64,000 per annum extra for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister; £33,000 per annum extra for Ministers; £10,000 extra for Committee Chairmen; £5,000 extra for Deputy Chairmen; £10,000 extra for the Chief Whips of some of the larger parties; and £5,000 extra for Deputy Whips. [Interruption]

Mr Eddie McGrady: That is not in there.

Mr Robert McCartney: No, it is not in there, Mr McGrady, but it is in the can. I understand that it is being looked at and discussed by various Committees.

Mr Eddie McGrady: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have made no contribution to this debate, and I cannot understand why the Member is referring to me.

Mr Speaker: I appeal to all Members to speak through the Chair.

Mr Robert McCartney: Mr McGrady may object, but when he makes unsolicited comments from a sedentary position he must expect a response.

Mr Speaker: Members may not be aware that remarks made from a sedentary position are recorded into Hansard only if they are referred to by the Member who is on his feet at the time. On this occasion the remark will be included in Hansard because it was referred to by Mr McCartney.

Mr Robert McCartney: Thank you very much indeed.
Based on the very generous sums that I have done — generous to those who are in receipt of the payments — approximately 50Members will be receiving enhanced salaries, and that number rises to 54 if I include the Whips. First, we have to explain to the public how we voted ourselves an increase of £9,000 a year on the basic salary. Secondly, we have to explain how we voted all of these additional moneys to more than 50% of the Members. According to my calculations, salary costs will be in the region of £9million a year, and that is before we have even started to do anything. People are going to question why there was such an enthusiastic clamour from so many Members for the establishment of the Assembly.
People will question the bona fides of those who were enthusiasts for the establishment of this body, and these salary increases will give them very good grounds for doing so. MrAdams, shrewd politician that he is, has clearly pointed the finger at what his party thinks will be the public’s reaction to this sort of money being voted to Assembly Members. There is much wisdom in the suggestion that, before everyone puts their snout well and truly into the trough at this time, they should carefully consider whether it will be to their ultimate benefit. The Assembly was established on questionable principles, by the use of Executive power, to undercut the principles of democratic procedure.

Mr Gerry Adams: Ba mhaith liom cupla pointe ordaithe a dhéanamh. An chéad phointe is ea nach n-aontaím leis an Teachta Dála sa mhéid a bhí le rá aige faoi na rudaí a dúirt mé féin.
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to make it clear that no Teachta Dála here decided on these salary increases. It was the Senior Salaries Review Body. I am asking for this to be deferred so that the Commission —

Mr Robert McCartney: That is not a point of order, and it is coming out of my time.

Mr Speaker: I have to accept that. It is not clear to me that it is a point of order.

Mr Gerry Adams: I accept your ruling, Mr Speaker. May I make two further points? As I said earlier, Sinn Féin accepts that politicians should be paid. Our members will not benefit personally from this increase.

Mr Speaker: Order. I must remind Members that points of order are technical matters in respect of the debate. If, for example, a Member appears to misrepresent another Member or to present an inaccurate or disagreeable view of what that Member has said, that is not a point of order which can be taken up. It is a point of disagreement, and the Member who has the Floor would have to be asked to give way. He or she would then decide whether to accept an intervention.
May I also advise Members — I am rather cautious about doing so, but I want to be as open as possible — that the 10-minute rule applied only under the Initial Standing Orders. Therefore Members have less need to worry about any interventions from that point of view.

Mr Robert McCartney: I do not wish to detain Members for very much longer than 10 minutes, but do I take it that the 10-minute rule does not apply to anything I have to say?

Mr Speaker: Let me clarify the position for the sake of fairness — and I do so with some caution. Under the new Standing Orders the 10-minute rule which was in the Initial Standing Orders no longer applies. However, I hope that Members will forget that and proceed under the previous arrangements.

Mr Robert McCartney: At no stage in my address did I suggest that Members had assessed the salaries attributable to their office, either as ordinary Members or as people exercising ministerial power. However, it is for the Assembly to vote to accept them. That is the point I am dealing with. The intervention is irrelevant, since the Assembly will decide what salaries it will give itself, whether on the recommendation of some other body or of its own volition. To spend £9 million on salaries out of a total budget, which, I understand, is getting on for £40million per annum seems to me to be gross extravagance. During the week I listened to a contributor to a radio phone-in programme suggesting that Assembly Members should receive the same salary and constituency allowance as a Member of Parliament.
12.00
On the face of it, if they were politicians doing their job one could say that maybe that was reasonable. However, one then has to point out that a Member of Parliament is responsible for an entire constituency — one of 18 in Northern Ireland. There are six Members of the Assembly for each of those constituencies, so in relative terms one would be paying six times the amount in salaries and six times the amount in constituency allowances that a Member of Parliament receives for doing the same job for the entire constituency. That would be gross overpayment.
I return to the issue of what Members are doing with their constituency allowances. To my knowledge there are many Members of the Assembly who have not yet opened a constituency office. And some of those that have done so run their places intermittently. I know of one office that is open two mornings a week and deals not only with Assembly constituency business but also with parliamentary constituency business. That Member will be in receipt of £45,000 per annum for his parliamentary place and £34,000 for his Assembly place — almost £80,000 a year for an office that is open two mornings a week.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Will Mr McCartney take an intervention?

Mr Robert McCartney: I will not. This is an open debate, and the Member will have ample time to make whatever points he seeks to make during his own speech.

Mr David Ervine: Does MrMcCartney have two constituency offices?

Mr Robert McCartney: I have only one constituency. I am a Member of the Assembly for North Down and the Member of Parliament for North Down. I have one constituency office for all of that. It is open from 9.30 am to 5.30 pm five days a week.

Mr Donovan McClelland: When Mr McCartney was leader of his now infamous political party did he ever complain to his Colleagues about their not opening offices and hiring their spouses as secretaries? If not, why not?

Mr Robert McCartney: That is not a point of order, and I am surprised that you are taking points of information, Mr Speaker. However, I will answer.
I did complain. I certainly did, and I think it is totally wrong. When I talk about Members of this Assembly not providing the proper facilities and services for their constituents I do not care if they are members of the NIUP, Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists or, for that matter, the DUP. If they are not serving their constituents to the best of their ability then they are not discharging the duties they imposed upon themselves when they stood for election.
I do not know how many Members have opened constituency offices; I do not know how many Members are employing wives, sons, daughters or other relations to whom they are syphoning off part of the money they are, being paid for running their constituencies. Of course, one cannot make a blanket criticism. I know of one or two relatives employed in such a position, and if their fathers or mothers were not employing them I would be happy to do so because they are discharging their duties with great care. I am not saying that relatives are necessarily failing to perform the functions of the job; what I am saying is that this practice raises a question. Just as in the law, justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. Anyone who employs relatives and pays them Government money, invites the obvious question. It must make people suspicious.
The whole of Northern Ireland is looking to the Assembly. Are we setting the best example by voting for an increase of £9,000 — over 25% more — on what we received over the last 18 months when, relatively speaking, very little was being done here? Does that present an image of disinterested service? The situation is compounded because, in addition to their basic salaries, more than half the Members will receive substantial further sums. Does that present an image of service or dedication? Or does it raise the suspicion that in the ululations from some parties about this great Assembly there is a large dollop of greed and self-interest?
Mr Adams’s remarks addressed this issue. Why do I say that? Because he compared the increase in the basic salary of an Assembly Member with what is available to those on the margins of society: the flotsam and jetsam of the ghettoes; the people who are unemployed or otherwise disadvantaged. There are questions that everyone here should be asking: are we doing right, and are we seen to be doing right? If the House rubber-stamps these proposals without further consideration, the people of Northern Ireland will judge it accordingly. I include all parties in this — not just Nationalists or Unionists or those of indeterminate orientation. Every Member must consider this issue and vote according to his conscience — not according to his pocket.

Mr Conor Murphy: A Chathaoirligh, in suggesting that this matter be referred back, we do not denigrate the members of the Commission and their hard work. The Assembly was entirely right to hand the determination of its salaries and allowances to the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB). However, the proposal for a substantial increase needs to be debated in the Chamber. If the SSRB had recommended a £10,000 cut in Members’ wages, there would definitely have been some debate. The Assembly should not run away from this. I notice that the DUP has absented itself, by and large, today, but that is its stock-in-trade on issues such as these.
The proposal for such a substantial increase when so many people live under huge disadvantage must be looked at very seriously, especially as this is the first sitting of the Assembly since the transfer of powers. If the Assembly’s first act on receiving those powers is to vote itself a substantial pay rise, that will send out entirely the wrong message. Many people are living on less than the proposed increase, so it is only right that the Commission deliberate this matter further.
A number of points relate to my party and to pay increases. Sinn Féin Members did not take the salaries allowed during the shadow period. They took an allowance from the party, and no increases are planned for party members, even if salary increases are agreed. There is no difference between the treatment of Ministers and that of Back-Benchers, and when setting up constituency offices, which provide an excellent service, the party decided that no family members would be considered for posts in them.
Go raibh maith agat.

Mr John Fee: I started by saying that this was a poisoned chalice, but I did not think that I would have to drink so much from it. Members need to be clear on a number of issues. The Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 has been superseded, and I understand that the Assembly has no authority, without further action, to pay the salaries of Members.
Members need to resolve this matter, or they will not be paid. The level of remuneration has not been set by the Assembly. Members, quite rightly, unanimously decided on 22February1999 that the level of remuneration would be set by the SSRB. Indeed, it was MrMcCartney who said that it would be prudent to let an independent body decide on future increases.
It was explicitly on the basis of that advice that the Assembly Commission, in exercising its duty under section47 of the NorthernIrelandAct1998, recommended to Members in February that the opinion of the SSRB be accepted, and every Member who attended that meeting agreed.
It is therefore with some personal annoyance that I find, at the last minute, that Members are not just asking the Commission to disregard its legal obligation to make provision for Members, the Secretariat, and everyone else —

Mr Gerry Adams: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to establish whether referring this matter to the incoming Commission would stop salaries being paid. I too praised the work of the Commission. I accept that Mr Fee has a poisoned chalice. However, this is a matter of social justice.

Mr Speaker: I cannot rule on the technical question contained in the point of order. You will have to take the word of the Member presenting.

Mr Robert McCartney: The Commission is not necessarily being asked — nor is the Assembly — not to make an order that salaries be paid. That is within the Commission’s authority. Can the Assembly not decide to continue to pay the salaries at the existing rate and agree to debate this matter again when the appropriate salary will be determined?

Mr Speaker: I will respond to that as it is a point of order. It is not possible for the Assembly so to decide. For the Assembly to be able to agree that, notice of an amendment would have to have been given one hour before the sitting began. This matter can only be accepted, rejected or, by leave of the House, taken back. It is not possible for the House to make an amendment at this stage.

Mr Robert McCartney: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. If the House rejects the motion is there anything to stop us immediately putting it down again for another day — even Wednesday of this week — to enable us to deal with the matter de novo? It could be put down as an amendment to the motion, and it could include a provision for any payments to be backdated.

Mr Speaker: It is possible to vote such a determination down and for matters to be brought back to a subsequent sitting. However, I cannot give an undertaking that such a sitting would take place this week — it would probably have to be next week and before the recess, which begins on 17December.

Mr David Ervine: I would like Mr Fee to clarify a couple of points. MrAdams — identified by MrMcCartney as a shrewd politician — asked for a deferment because it would not look good, given the social difficulties, to have this as the first item of business. How long a deferment does MrAdams believe to be necessary? How long will it be until the social circumstances of the people outside are such that Assembly Members consider it wise to vote for an increase in their salaries?
Mr McCartney, without realising it, has insulted more Members today than he normally does. And when I say "insulted" I mean insulted. There are nuances that you may have to look at from the point of view of the greater protection of Members here.
First, MrMcCartney said that the Assembly was created under dubious Executive authority. If I am not mistaken, the Assembly was created by the will of the people of Northern Ireland. Of course, MrMcCartney is entitled to his opinion, but when he talks about unemployed people and about the flotsam and jetsam, I wonder what he really means. In the past, MrMcCartney’s forte was to ensure that, for example, a person who had lost a leg got the minimum compensation from those whose moral responsibility it was to pay out. That is what MrMcCartney did, for he is an exalted barrister.

Mr Gerry Adams: Will the Member give way?

Mr David Ervine: I cannot give way, for I am being given way to. MrMcCartney is an exalted, learned man who does not know that an amendment must be put down one hour before the sitting.

Mr Gerry Adams: I agree with MrErvine that today MrMcCartney has insulted more people than usual. That he used my remarks to do so, I take as a compliment of sorts.
The Official Report will show what I said. It is not a matter of its not being nice to have this as the first item of business. It is a matter of its being socially wrong for us to draw such huge salaries — even though we may deserve them for the work that we do — when others down the line are being treated so badly by the system. How long will it take to rectify this? It probably will not be rectified until we are part of an Irish Republic.

Mr David Ervine: That will never happen, Gerry.

Mr Gerry Adams: I happen to think that you should be an egalitarian politician — but there you are.
We tried to get this motion deferred until next Monday. I wanted the Commission to reflect upon the matter and discuss it further, but it appears that that will not happen. Fair enough.

Mr Speaker: Members should not use interventions as a substitute for speeches. An intervention ought to be directed, through the Speaker, to the Member who has the Floor. I have given reasonable latitude, but I urge Members to abide by this convention.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Most Members will agree that this has been one of the cheapest, most cynical political stunts that the Assembly has ever witnessed — and no doubt this is only the beginning. We have heard two of the better-off people in society crying crocodile tears, weeping for the unemployed and the disadvantaged. Doubtless MrAdams will throw open the doors of his holiday home in Donegal to the oppressed and the disadvantaged of west Belfast, and Mr McCartney will do the same with his villa in France.

Mr Speaker: Order. Interventions are an opportunity, given by the Member who is speaking, for a brief remark. They are not a means of starting a debate all over again when the Member who moved the motion is winding up.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Adams, my father spent 20years working on a building site. In three years you have spent more money on suits than my father could afford during those 20years when he was slogging his guts out.

Mr Speaker: Order. Members must also recall that they should not address other Members directly.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Apologies, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I will not immediately assume that the matters refer to the Chair, but they should be addressed to the Chair.
Mr Fee, please continue.

Mr Alex Maskey: A Chathaoirligh, on a point of order. I spoke last week about Members defaming, slandering and making comments willy-nilly. My party has not at any time during this debate brought up issues such as those that MrMcCartney has raised: Members employing people who are very close to them, or building little extensions to their houses and charging exorbitant rent. We did not mention matters like that. If Members want us to personalise this debate we will do so, but they should remember that when they slander or insult another Member, they will be treated likewise.

Mr Speaker: Mr Maskey has made a very clear, rational and important point. The rules of procedure are set in place to keep a degree of proper decorum. When Members transgress those rules by making direct and personal remarks, some of which, though not ones I have heard this morning, are unparliamentary and therefore out of order, other Members inevitably respond in like fashion, and that does not improve the proceedings at all. Mr Maskey’s point is valid and ought to be borne in mind.

Mr Gerry Adams: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. MrMcClelland has just removed himself from my guest list.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I would like some clarification of the paper to which the Member is speaking at the moment (NIA3). To what extent did the SSRB decide the differential between the salary for being a Member of the Assembly and what is received by those who serve on the Commission?

Mr John Fee: The SSRB simply made permissive comments; it did not make any determination on the amounts. The shadow Assembly Commission, in conjunction with the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Secretariat, and after consideration of the payments made to officers of other legislative Assemblies — Westminster, Scotland, Wales and theDáil — made its recommendation.

Mr Roy Beggs: Did the Commission as a body, and therefore all its members, agree with what has been presented here today?

Mr John Fee: The shadow Commission, which comprised members from the UUP, the DUP, the SDLP and Sinn Féin, a representative of the smaller parties and the Initial Presiding Officer, and which existed up to this morning, agreed this unanimously and reported it in February, when the Assembly also agreed it unanimously.
There are many issues for consideration, but I want to draw to a close. I have great sympathy with many of the Members who have spoken, but it appears, somehow, to have fallen to me personally to make a judgement on how to proceed. The Assembly must decide either to accept or to reject the Determination.
Sections 39 to 48 of the Northern Ireland Act deal with the responsibilities and the legal and statutory duties of the Assembly Commission. There has been no controversy about the provision we are making to pay the staff — from the Doorkeepers to the Committee Clerks. However, the Commission has a responsibility to the Members to set the salaries recommended by the SSRB, having taken professional advice. We can do no more.
We commend this Determination to the House.
12.30pm
Question put.

Several Members: Aye.

Several Members: No.

Mr Speaker: This requires only a simple majority, and my judgement is that the Ayes have it. [Interruption]
If the Member wishes to challenge, he ought to do so in the normal manner, not sotto voce, and then there will be a Division.

Mr Robert McCartney: Mr Speaker, I can be accused of many things, but never of being sotto voce.
Question agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Salaries) Determination 1999 (NIA 3) be approved.

Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Allowances) Determination 1999

Rev Robert Coulter: I beg to move
That the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Allowances) Determination 1999 (NIA 2) be approved.
Before presenting the Determination on Members’ allowances, I would like to endorse the points made by Mr Fee. In his opening remarks he welcomed the new Commission members and expressed his appreciation of the work done by those who have left the Commission. The Commission is the Assembly’s body corporate, and it is charged by the Northern Ireland Act with responsibility for ensuring that the Assembly is provided with the property, staff and services it requires. Over the past 14 months the shadow Commission met on 35occasions.
As Mr Fee has reminded us, the two Determinations and the three Bills which have just been ordered to be printed are not about advancing the interests of Members. They are about the Commission’s fulfilling its corporate responsibility. Staff are entitled to secure a wage and to contribute to a pension scheme, and elected Members and their staff are no different. The Commission has no legal basis on which to pay Members or establish a pension scheme. That is why these Determinations need to be made and the Bills introduced at this early stage.
Now let me move to the business in hand — the determination of Members’ allowances. In his address, MrFee emphasised the centrality of the SSRB’s report to the salaries Determination. For the most part the SSRB’s recommendations were followed in the allowances Determination, though current practice at Westminster and in Scotland and Wales also provided useful reference points. Close examination of the report shows that the figures in the Determination are slightly higher to reflect the recommended rise to allow for the increase in the retail price index over the previous year.
At first glance Members may think that the allowances Determination is rather too short to deal with a range of complex issues. It contains the basic provisions for the scheme, though no detail on its operation and administration. Staff in the finance office are currently drawing up guidance for Members on what is and what is not allowable and on how staff should handle claims. Members will have an early opportunity to comment as the guidance will have to be formally adopted by the Assembly.
I propose to take the various allowances in the sequence in which they appear in the schedule to the determination. All travel allowances are in accordance with the SSRB’s recommendations. Subsistence allowances are in line with those in Scotland and Wales, while the rates for meals mirror current Civil Service allowances, which are not liable to income tax. The total office cost allowances as recommended by the SSRB, though the determination does not apportion those allowances between salaries and other expenses. Arrangements have been put in place to enable the allowances to be front-ended. Members will be able to draw down what they require, provided that commitments to staff salaries, rent and rates for the year are met.
This should allow for better financial planning and ease some of the cash-flow problems that a number of Membershave had under the current arrangements. During the shadow period, when office cost allowances werepaid monthly, the Commission made representations to the Minister asking for them to be paid on a six-month block basis. Unfortunately, because of the political uncertainty, the Minister was unable to accede to our request.
The SSRB recommended that
"the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the NorthernIreland Assembly each determine the financial or other assistance to be available to Members with disabilities."
The Determination reflects the same level of assistance as exists in Scotland.
Recall expenses are in line with those for Westminster, Scotland and Wales, and travel arrangements for Members’ employees are as recommended by the SSRB, with the allowances payable mirroring Civil Service rates, which do not attract a tax liability.
The allowances for staff pensions and redundancies follow the SSRB’s recommendations, but it should be noted that there is no provision for the Assembly to run a dedicated pension scheme for Members’ staff. Temporary secretarial allowances are in line with those at Westminster and in Wales, and Members holding a dual mandate will be pleased to note that the SSRB recommended that all allowances be payable to Members who are also MPs and/or MEPs.
This has been a detailed presentation, but it is important to assure Members that the Commission has tried to account for every eventuality using the SSRB report as its base.
I commend the Determination to the Assembly.

Mr David Ford: I wish to refer to paragraph4 — the disability allowance section. So far as I know, none of us are eligible for the additional allowance for disability. The last person in this place who was eligible was EileenBell’s predecessor, BertieMcConnell, who was an Assembly Member for NorthDown in the 1970s. MrMcConnell was totally blind. Notwithstanding what Mr Coulter said about the Scottish allowance, £10,000 is a modest sum for the professional services that would be required by a fully disabled Member, whether the handicap were physical, visual or auditory. Can the Commission re-examine whether that sum is an appropriate maximum before we come to a time when it might cause personal embarrassment?
The National Assembly for Wales has paid for some additional equipment for a Member’s employee who suffers from a handicap. Can the Commission assure us that it will look at such a situation in a similarly favourable way should it arise here?

Mr David Ervine: I had problems with the previous Determination, but I have little difficulty with this one, and I commend the work of the Commission. This Determination will ensure that parties such as the PUP can have full-time, fully operational offices staffed by people who are not members of our family. It is our party policy that such should be the case.
I have some concerns. I should like to look at the services that are funnelled through Members to constituency officers and, via their workers, to the broader populace. Whether we are dealing with Members’ remuneration or Members’ allowances, the Assembly is about the delivery of service.
There will be many cheap shots, and the newspapers will be full of comments about the large amount of money that is going to be paid to Assembly Members. However, we should not get upset. In jail every Christmas dinner menu was printed on Christmas Eve, as if to say that bad people like me should not have much time to anticipate a reasonable meal. Members must face the fact that their salaries and allowances will be brought to public notice. However, they will get over it, especially when they are spending the money.
My Colleague BillyHutchinson and I have stated that we have full-time offices with full-time staff, which is beneficial and delivers a consistent service. Although we have three offices, we achieved only two portions of Members’ allowances for office costs. That contrasts with MrMcCartney, who, by his own admission, has one office and complains about the costs that are drawn down by Westminster MPs and Members of the Assembly. Will he and the fat cats with Gallic holiday homes, who castigate us for wanting reasonable remuneration, lay their account books before us?
I am very conscious of the unemployed because I have been unemployed at times through illness. Many of those who have disparaged the unemployed in the past are cute on the subject of finance, especially when their bank balances are bulging.
I can now earn £38,000 a year, and I have to pinch myself to remind myself not to spend it all. Unlike many others, we are very much like Sinn Féin Members. It is not a case of "ourselves alone" because we have to help to keep others. We get an industrial wage and do not get the full benefit of the £38,000. Would that we did, for then I could speak to MrMcCartney in France and the many other places where he may be found. The media will go on the attack, and some of the cute attitudes and the empty Benches show that there is a certain doubt and a feeling of guilt.
I am a member of Belfast City Council, for which I am remunerated. I do not wish to make public the earnings of the directors and the chief executive, but I can say that the chief executive receives close to what we pay our two Prime Ministers. That is the amount paid to someone who makes no decisions but simply implements those that are made by others. Members of Belfast City Council had to determine his pay, and we had to ensure that he was properly remunerated.
Would we suggest that the chief executive of Belfast City Council should earn more than the Prime Minister? If we hope to attract into politics those who have avoided all the issues in the bear pit of political debate, pious attitudes about money will not work. We have to make it worth their while.
I have been unemployed, mostly through sickness, but I am convinced that my abilities could earn me far more than £38,000 a year. Had I not gone to jail but joined the Bar, perhaps we would have more than one exalted, wonderful black crow about the place.

Rev Robert Coulter: The Commission followed closely the SSRB’s recommendation 16, which says
"We recommend that the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly each determine the financial or other assistance to be available to Members with disabilities to enable them to carry out their Parliamentary/Assembly and constituency duties effectively."
The recommendation for a payment of £10,000 per session was based upon the Scottish precedent, and it is open to the Assembly to review the level of support and table an amendment in due course.
I commend the Determination to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Allowances) Determination 1999 (NIA 2) be approved.
Adjourned at 12.46 pm.